Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New Intel Mac mini
- Thread starter drift1492
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
apple on intel graphics, part 2
An Internet Archive snapshot of Apple's page on PPC Mac Minis said that the dedicated graphics card would help in multitasking and other non-gaming duties. OS X is fairly heavy on the eye candy, which doesn't come free. I'll probably wait and see what the effect the Intel integrated graphics has on performance.
Incidentally, this page also has the earlier noted statement that "'integrated Intel graphics' chip steals power from the CPU and siphons off memory from system-level RAM. Youd have to buy an extra card to get the graphics performance of Mac mini..."
http://web.archive.org/web/20050401054016/www.apple.com/macmini/graphics.html
"Do More Simultaneously... Your Mac mini uses its dedicated graphics chip to offload visual tasks from the main CPU. So the G4 processor doesnt have to worry about layering windows, moving them around, scrolling through web pages or worse, figuring out the pattern umpteen laser beams make when reflected off a shielded spaceship during combat. The Radeon 9200 takes care of all that, and does a better job than a general purpose CPU since its designed especially for such tasks. Even better, the Radeon 9200 gets to use 32MB of dedicated memory, which lets the G4 processor use all of its RAM for other tasks. That means you can run many more programs at once."
Digg it:
http://digg.com/apple/Internet_Archive_of_Apple.com_Criticizing_Intel_Integrated_Graphics
An Internet Archive snapshot of Apple's page on PPC Mac Minis said that the dedicated graphics card would help in multitasking and other non-gaming duties. OS X is fairly heavy on the eye candy, which doesn't come free. I'll probably wait and see what the effect the Intel integrated graphics has on performance.
Incidentally, this page also has the earlier noted statement that "'integrated Intel graphics' chip steals power from the CPU and siphons off memory from system-level RAM. Youd have to buy an extra card to get the graphics performance of Mac mini..."
http://web.archive.org/web/20050401054016/www.apple.com/macmini/graphics.html
"Do More Simultaneously... Your Mac mini uses its dedicated graphics chip to offload visual tasks from the main CPU. So the G4 processor doesnt have to worry about layering windows, moving them around, scrolling through web pages or worse, figuring out the pattern umpteen laser beams make when reflected off a shielded spaceship during combat. The Radeon 9200 takes care of all that, and does a better job than a general purpose CPU since its designed especially for such tasks. Even better, the Radeon 9200 gets to use 32MB of dedicated memory, which lets the G4 processor use all of its RAM for other tasks. That means you can run many more programs at once."
Digg it:
http://digg.com/apple/Internet_Archive_of_Apple.com_Criticizing_Intel_Integrated_Graphics
Airforce
macrumors 6502a
nagromme said:
Those "cheap" pc parts you would be buying to build it yourself would come with:
1. Longer warranty
2. Better support
3. The knowledge you would learn from putting it together to fix it yourself if the need ever arises in the future.
Software is where it loses 😛
Lord Blackadder
macrumors P6
stcanard said:
They could use something like a GeForce 6200Go, which would have much better performance than the GMA950 but still be clearly inferior to the X1600. ANY GPU from nVidia will be a godsend for the future iBook over integrated stuff, which (for me) is just tolerable in a Mini but unacceptable at the iBook's anticipated price.
Still tempting
To me, a mac mini is perfect for people moving over from windows. Its the perfect transition - You already have a monitor keyboard and mouse - you can experience Mac at a low cost.
Although the new intel Mini does cost a little extra than its power PC version, you do get a lot more bang than you did, and more importantly, with even just a core solo it becomes a much more capable machine than with the G4 - you could probably tackle photoshop tasks much faster for instance (well, once it goes universal 🙄 )
I think what people really want to know is:
If a more knowledgeable person out there could clear these questions up, please do!
As far as gaming goes... to me a mac just isn't a tool for gaming, and as long as other apps aren't serverely affected, a mac mini is a tempting preposition...
Just my $0.02
To me, a mac mini is perfect for people moving over from windows. Its the perfect transition - You already have a monitor keyboard and mouse - you can experience Mac at a low cost.
Although the new intel Mini does cost a little extra than its power PC version, you do get a lot more bang than you did, and more importantly, with even just a core solo it becomes a much more capable machine than with the G4 - you could probably tackle photoshop tasks much faster for instance (well, once it goes universal 🙄 )
I think what people really want to know is:
- Will the Intergrated Graphics slow down basic OS use?
- Will the stealing of system RAM for video hinder performance?
- How many apps actually make heavy use of the GPU - would Final Cut performance differ between idential systems with different GPU's for instance?
If a more knowledgeable person out there could clear these questions up, please do!
As far as gaming goes... to me a mac just isn't a tool for gaming, and as long as other apps aren't serverely affected, a mac mini is a tempting preposition...
Just my $0.02
mdavey
macrumors 6502a
The Red Wolf said:
Comparisons with the iMac (elsewhere in this thread) are interesting, but for many the crunch will be how this stacks up against the mini-form-factor PCs such as the miniPC being sold by AOpen, Evesham and others. Against the existing AOpen models, the Mac mini looks excellent value for money and I'm sure tha this is 1/3 the reason Apple felt they would be able to get away with the price increase (65% increase compared to the £339 Mac mini G4).
Another part of the reason, I feel, is that Apple needed to introduce the Mac mini in time for the US academia orders that get placed in April/May but didn't want to jepodise sales of the iMac and (when it is introduced) the MacBook.
Finally, I expect that Apple have been surprised at the sales of the Mac mini G4 and aren't confident of being able to handle demand for the Intel version at its introduction. To them, it makes sense to artificially limit sales by making the price unattractive and gives them the opportunity to bump the specification or drop prices while retaining logistical control.
AOpen are working on a Core-based version of their miniPC. I was actually expecting them to announce before Apple. It will be interesting to see how Apple responds when AOpen do announce - although unlikely, a really cheap AOpen miniPC with core processor in will probably be very appealing to the OSx86 copyright infringers 🙁
stcanard
macrumors 65816
Lord Blackadder said:
Yeah, that's what I've been assuming -- I would have noticed a competitor 😀
In all honesty, I would have loved to see more in the new Mac Mini, but this system appears to hit the target.
And I bet that if you put it side by side with a G4 Mac Mini it will look exactly the same but faster.
Remember, there is one thing that will happen with every new release this year:
Guaranteed, Every Rev A Intel will look exactly (form factor) like the PPC system it is replacing, except when you put them side-by-side on iLife tests the Rev A will feel faster. Every Rev A intel will be physically indistinguishable from its PPC counterpart, except by looking at specs / serial numbers.
Once that's been done, Apple has proved that the change didn't change the nature of the Mac. Then they are free to innovate again.
7200 rpm hard drive standard though, i really had to search for this, i wonder why they kept this secret? it could have been in the presentation, i may have missed it
ieani
macrumors 6502a
stcanard said:
Your form factor theory is already holey:
"This spring Apple is expected to roll-out the a new series of iBook consumer laptops built around a 13-inch widescreen display. The new models will sport the first major design revision to the iBook in several years" --Apple Insider http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1499
Lord Blackadder said:
I agree with you, but I disagree with you. People buying a low end machine mostly are looking to use some office applications, digitial music/photos, etc. (talking gaming on ANY low end machine is just silly). The "percieved" value of a low end system is often more important. The mini was the machine that had the promise to "recruit windows switchers."
Dell is offering a machine with an analog 17" Flat Panel monitor, same graphics, granted a celeron processor, but for the most part all the same features and the dual layer dvd drive is only a $50 add on. Toss in another $50 for a wifi card and you still come in under the price of the new mini. Even if the mouse and such aren't top of the line, they're still there.
Now... if the mini truly had relaunched with the "rumored" DVR-killer app and better graphics, it would be a great machine and price worthy.
I have always viewed the mini as the machine to turn people from the dark side.... this new one is not it.
stcanard
macrumors 65816
Lord Blackadder said:
Too small a difference. Model numbers make people's head spin (remember I'm not talking about experts here). I can't even keep up on model numbers -- I have to do research every time I'm ready for an upgrade.
Easier for a salesperson to say "On this system the graphics are done by the computer itself. On this one there is a piece dedicated to just doing graphics, that's why its more expensive".
Abulia
macrumors 68000
Worth repeating.ddrueckhammer said:
In my MBA marketing and strategic planning classes, my team did an analysis and recommendation for Apple's business plan. What we determined was essentially as stated above: a low cost mini that provides no price barrier to enter the Mac world and a home unit/DVR "set top" box in the living room. This box would essentially be a mini-powered device but rebranded to leverage the iPod name. Such a device would play music, interface with your iPod w/ a dock, allow you to play videos from iTunes, as well as your DVDs and basic DVR. In essence, the digital entertainment device.
Only Apple has the presence to make this happen via their vertical integration: they have the knowledge, the hardware, and the infrastructure (iTunes) to make this happen. They could once again define a market to their specifications and dominate through innovation and offerings. By leveraging the iPod brand, they could be first to market and establish a strong dominance before competing products, such as the Viiv platform, arrive. I really think Apple has squandered this opportunity.
I'm not saying we're any kind of geniuses, but three other non-Apple users reached this recommendation from a purely business perspective and looking at where Apple needs to go from here. You can't poop out iPods forever.
At the moment we have a 2yr old powerbook, that I use to store music (@30gigs) and photos (@5gigs), and do quite a lot of photo slideshows as a little business sideline for wedding photographers.
The HD is pretty full, with <20gigs - so one thing I'd been looking to invest in was a USB HD. Also, I love the idea of having something like Front Row output to a TV for playing music through the stereo, with an on TV screen GUI - so front row looks great for this, as well as being able to view photos, and slideshows etc straight onto the the TV without burning DVDs - so the new Mac Mini looks like it would do all of this and more.
I'm not too up on the whole wi-fi thing - at the moment we have an airport extreme and wi-fi on the PB. If we got a mini to sit by the tv, and do all the outputting to the tv - would it be simple enough from a betworking point of view to :
a, shift the music and photo library onto the mini, but be able to have access to it on the PB if the PB was elsewhere in the house?
b, be able to preview iMovie slideshows directly on the tv, via wi-fi / the airport card in the mac mini?
If so, to use it as extra storage, with easy access to files on between both machines, plus having it as media hub to output stuff through the tv/hi-fi then i'd seriously be tempted.
Not too worried about the PVR side of things, as our cable supplier has just released a PVR box, and that's getting installed in a couple of weeks.
Iain
The HD is pretty full, with <20gigs - so one thing I'd been looking to invest in was a USB HD. Also, I love the idea of having something like Front Row output to a TV for playing music through the stereo, with an on TV screen GUI - so front row looks great for this, as well as being able to view photos, and slideshows etc straight onto the the TV without burning DVDs - so the new Mac Mini looks like it would do all of this and more.
I'm not too up on the whole wi-fi thing - at the moment we have an airport extreme and wi-fi on the PB. If we got a mini to sit by the tv, and do all the outputting to the tv - would it be simple enough from a betworking point of view to :
a, shift the music and photo library onto the mini, but be able to have access to it on the PB if the PB was elsewhere in the house?
b, be able to preview iMovie slideshows directly on the tv, via wi-fi / the airport card in the mac mini?
If so, to use it as extra storage, with easy access to files on between both machines, plus having it as media hub to output stuff through the tv/hi-fi then i'd seriously be tempted.
Not too worried about the PVR side of things, as our cable supplier has just released a PVR box, and that's getting installed in a couple of weeks.
Iain
I've had my Mini 1.42 for about a year. The warranty runs out today, in fact.
And in that year, I've spent about 20 minutes gaming, playing that crappy dinosaur game that came preinstalled. That's it.
But on almost a daily basis, I've watched my cpu pegged for extended periods of time while I encoded audio, compiled something in Fink, did a little light photo editing, backed up a DVD (the destructive child never gets to touch the originals!), or burned a DVD of the kid's latest goofy antics for the grandparents to watch.
The old Mini does all of that in a silent, tiny package that tucks nicely under my existing 20" LCD. The new Core Duo Mini will do all of that, in the same tiny silent package, much faster, with added new bells and whistles like Front Row!
Would better graphics have been nice? Sure. Did the lack of a better graphics chip slow me down when I placed my order today? Not for a second!
And in that year, I've spent about 20 minutes gaming, playing that crappy dinosaur game that came preinstalled. That's it.
But on almost a daily basis, I've watched my cpu pegged for extended periods of time while I encoded audio, compiled something in Fink, did a little light photo editing, backed up a DVD (the destructive child never gets to touch the originals!), or burned a DVD of the kid's latest goofy antics for the grandparents to watch.
The old Mini does all of that in a silent, tiny package that tucks nicely under my existing 20" LCD. The new Core Duo Mini will do all of that, in the same tiny silent package, much faster, with added new bells and whistles like Front Row!
Would better graphics have been nice? Sure. Did the lack of a better graphics chip slow me down when I placed my order today? Not for a second!
stcanard
macrumors 65816
ieani said:
We'll see, appleinsider has been claiming that for a while.
But a change to a 13" isn't what I would consider a form-factor change, from this point of view, because people are used to seeing a range of laptop sizes. Moving from a 12" to a 13" widescreen isn't one of those "OMG THE MAC IS DIFFERENT NOW!" changes.
Mac4Brains
macrumors regular
The Mini Lacks in value
At $600 the iMac Mini is a joke. I can understand it if they were priced to compete with something like a Dell. The lowest end Mac is priced like a upper mid ranged Dell. At the listed price for what you get out of it massively lacks in comparison.
The high end iMac Mini is priced like an eMac just with out a screen. If that unit was in an eMac case and priced at $600 than it would be a big deal. At $800 after I get a cheep 17 LCD for $200 and a keyboard and mouse I will pay $1100. But I can get a standard iMac with double the hard drive space, a quality 17LCD, keyboard & mouse, better graphics, a faster CPU, built in stereo speakers, an extra firewire port, built in microphone, and a built in iSight all for $200 more. The prices for the Mini line is basically double of what they need to be and they not very appealing to me.
At $600 the iMac Mini is a joke. I can understand it if they were priced to compete with something like a Dell. The lowest end Mac is priced like a upper mid ranged Dell. At the listed price for what you get out of it massively lacks in comparison.
The high end iMac Mini is priced like an eMac just with out a screen. If that unit was in an eMac case and priced at $600 than it would be a big deal. At $800 after I get a cheep 17 LCD for $200 and a keyboard and mouse I will pay $1100. But I can get a standard iMac with double the hard drive space, a quality 17LCD, keyboard & mouse, better graphics, a faster CPU, built in stereo speakers, an extra firewire port, built in microphone, and a built in iSight all for $200 more. The prices for the Mini line is basically double of what they need to be and they not very appealing to me.
thequicksilver
macrumors 6502a
Reality vs Blancmanges
As you called your post "Cost vs Reality", I'll call mine "Reality vs Blancmanges", as it's equally meaningless.
Firstly, your component list didn't consider a hard drive, optical drive, or motherboard. But you did include $210 of software. Or, I should say, software which would cost a consumer $210, but Apple's margin on this software is surely going to be astronomically high, probably in the 50% region (or even above?). The actual figure I concede nobody but Apple knows, but it would seem a fair guess to me. Factor in the hardware you forgot though and I wouldn't disagree much with your figure of around US$400.
Secondly, you might want to actually read apple.com. The low end Mini is now $599.
Thirdly, a USB hub? For $29? If you seriously think Apple paid more than I paid for my last one, then I would suggest you reconsider. Namely I'd ask you consider the slight possibility that this is a custom designed board with four USB ports connected to the bus with no "hub" involved.
Apple fanatics insane? Some might be. Some aren't. But your point is exceptionally poorly made. Your arrogant tone completely detracts from anything useful you had to say.
I don't disagree with your opinion, but I heartily disagree with the method you used to voice it.
The Red Wolf said:
As you called your post "Cost vs Reality", I'll call mine "Reality vs Blancmanges", as it's equally meaningless.
Firstly, your component list didn't consider a hard drive, optical drive, or motherboard. But you did include $210 of software. Or, I should say, software which would cost a consumer $210, but Apple's margin on this software is surely going to be astronomically high, probably in the 50% region (or even above?). The actual figure I concede nobody but Apple knows, but it would seem a fair guess to me. Factor in the hardware you forgot though and I wouldn't disagree much with your figure of around US$400.
Secondly, you might want to actually read apple.com. The low end Mini is now $599.
Thirdly, a USB hub? For $29? If you seriously think Apple paid more than I paid for my last one, then I would suggest you reconsider. Namely I'd ask you consider the slight possibility that this is a custom designed board with four USB ports connected to the bus with no "hub" involved.
Apple fanatics insane? Some might be. Some aren't. But your point is exceptionally poorly made. Your arrogant tone completely detracts from anything useful you had to say.
I don't disagree with your opinion, but I heartily disagree with the method you used to voice it.
Lord Blackadder
macrumors P6
stcanard said:
Put it this way - the 6200 is actually usable for gaming, wheras the GMA950 really isn't by all acounts. Some people actually play World of Warcraft on their G4 Minis - I doubt that will be possible on the new Mini.
Besides, as you said, the 6200 is not an integrated unit, which immediately makes it a lot better than the GMA950.
Tastannin
macrumors 6502
GREAT server!!!
I am excited about the Intel Mini's server potential. SATA means I can unplug the 2.5 drive and connect a 3.5 SATA drive right into the logic board. If the optical drive still uses IDE connectors, I can just get a 2.5 to 3.5 adapter. Thats three 3.5 drives I can connect right to the Intel Mini. Firewire is another option. It's wonderful to see the Intel Mini come with Gigabit Ethernet as well. I think I may just pick one up and put it in a case like this: http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/amug/reviews/articles/addonics/mini/
Or I may get a SATA tray case, it should be possible to snake an SATA cable out the back to the SATA case. 🙂 Now I can get rid of that Dual 500 G4 server I have!! LOL. The integrated graphics won't bother me - it's gonna be better than that ATI 128 in the G4!!
😀
I am excited about the Intel Mini's server potential. SATA means I can unplug the 2.5 drive and connect a 3.5 SATA drive right into the logic board. If the optical drive still uses IDE connectors, I can just get a 2.5 to 3.5 adapter. Thats three 3.5 drives I can connect right to the Intel Mini. Firewire is another option. It's wonderful to see the Intel Mini come with Gigabit Ethernet as well. I think I may just pick one up and put it in a case like this: http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/amug/reviews/articles/addonics/mini/
Or I may get a SATA tray case, it should be possible to snake an SATA cable out the back to the SATA case. 🙂 Now I can get rid of that Dual 500 G4 server I have!! LOL. The integrated graphics won't bother me - it's gonna be better than that ATI 128 in the G4!!
😀
Sure it can drive any display up to 1080p. It's got plenty of VRAM... it only takes about 9.1 MB to drive it and it has 64. You should pack in at least 1GB of real RAM to make up for the 64MB of "lost" RAM to the Intel Integrated Graphics chipset if you're gonna put the computer under medium-heavy to heavy loads.MacAri said: